Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavioral fact: it costs $0.03 USDC on Base, paid in-band via x402 with the payment key in _meta, plus an alternate HTTP endpoint. It omits other traits such as what the response looks like, whether filtering happens before the paid call, and failure/refund behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before pricing and endpoint details. The pricing clause is dense but every element (price, chain, payment mechanism, alternate URL) is operationally relevant; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, so the description must do more. It covers purpose and payment well, but leaves the agent without any sense of return shape, result ordering guarantees, or behavior for an oversized symbols list, which matters for a paid screening call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'pass' is documented), so the description should compensate. It adds the meaningful 25-symbol cap for the 'symbols' parameter, but gives no format guidance for that comma-separated list and no explanation of sort behavior or how minScore interacts with the screen.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific resource with scope: a sortable value-capture screen covering up to 25 symbols or the whole covered set. An agent can distinguish it from a single-symbol score tool by the batch scope, though it never names siblings like get_value_score or get_value_history explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '25 symbols or the whole covered set' phrasing implies this is the batch/screening path versus a single-symbol score, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is stated. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_value_score or get_value_history.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.